Case Study on "Negligence and Strict Liability"

Case Study 4 pages (1224 words) Sources: 0

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Negligence and Strict Liability

The issue in Krasnecky v. Meffen involves the killing of seven sheep by two dogs on April 24, 1993. The defendants' dogs entered the plaintiffs' residential property when they were away for an out-of-State trip. The basis of the plaintiffs' claim was damages for emotional distress and loss of companionship and society, as they considered the sheep companion animals, rather than livestock held for economic gain.

The complaint contained six counts: 1) seeking damages for violation; 2) claiming strict liability under the common law, seeking damages for emotional distress and permanent loss of the sheep in terms of companionship and society -- this demand precludes any market value or nominal damages; 3) trespass to real estate; 4 & 5) intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and recklessness.

The plaintiffs refused discovery requests in terms of market value for the sheep. The reason for this was the plaintiff's regard for the animals as their pets, and indeed family members, rather than livestock. For this reason, the plaintiff's regarded it as morally inappropriate to seek market value damages for animals that they regard as equally important as human family members. Instead, testimony and documentary evidence established that the death of the sheep caused severe emotional distress and associated physical problems to the plaintiffs.

The outcome of the case was, however, a decision that the plaintiffs had no legal claim to emotional distress, which was therefore precluded from the case. Final judgment dismissed counts 2 and 6. Count 1 resulted in the amount of 1 doll

Continue scrolling to

download full paper ⤓

ar nominal compensation. The plaintiffs appealed this judgment, arguing that they were entitled to noneconomic damages for counts 1, 2 and 6.

As mentioned, the basis of the issue is the consideration of the sheep as companion animals. In this regard, the plaintiffs argued that "companion animals" are not limited to cats and dogs. Indeed, there was evidence suggesting that the plaintiffs treated the sheep as much more than mere livestock; the sheep received names, birthday celebrations with special food and balloons, and displays of affection such as pats, hugs, brushes and snacks. Young sheep were brought into the plaintiffs' home for four weeks at a time to be bottle fed and treated for all practical purposes as pets or even "children." This was the basis of the claim for emotional distress.

The final outcome of the appeal was that the sheep owners could not claim for emotional distress, they had not cognizable claim for loss of companionship and society, and that there was not sufficient evidence to suggest trespass.

Rule

According to the law, persons who may recover damages in tort form emotional distress becaue of an injury to a third party include only parents or a person closely related to the person who has been directly injured. In other words, emotional distress can only be claimed for injury to a human being, regardless of the status of an animal as "companion." Therefore, the "wrongful death" tort requires the death of a person, not an animal.

In response, the plaintiffs cited Sullivan v. Boston Gas Co. (1993), where motional distress was granted on the basis of two persons witnessing the destruction of their home, which was not a person but property. In such cases, damages can only be claimed when the injury is witnessed in progress. In Cohen v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1983), for example, emotional distress was denied because the plaintiff learned of her son's death only seven hours after the fact. There was no direct witness to the event, nor did the plaintiff become aware of it immediately after the fact.

Based on this, the rule is that 1) the death… READ MORE

Download Full Paper

Write a New Paper for Me

Quoted Instructions for "Negligence and Strict Liability" Assignment:

“

Directions: Read the following cases. Choose one on which to write a case study that carefully considers the case scenario and tort(s) involved, if any. Are you suprised by the verdict? What*****'s the main lesson to be learned in the case you*****'ve chosen? Does the verdict seem to be in line with what you*****'ve read in the textbook? With what you know to be the law in your jurisdiction?

Cases:

Krasnecky v. Meffen (will be uploaded in Resource Files)

Pichelman v. Barfknecht (will be uploaded in Resource Files)

For more information on expectations for case studies, see below:

Case Study Expectations

The expectation is that you will provide a thoughtful analysis of the case scenario, using the concepts that you have learned in the text book. Lawyers use a systematic method of analyzing legal issues called IRAC. *****IRAC***** stands for Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.

When approaching the case studies, you will first need to determine the issue or question being asked. Once the issue is defined, you must determine the rule that applies to the fact scenario. This will guide you in your analysis. The analysis simply requires that you apply the appropriate rule(s) to the facts presented. Once you have done this, it will lead you to your conclusion or the proper outcome in the case.

For example, let*****s look at the following scenario. Bob asks the waiter at a fancy restaurant to recommend an entrÃ©e. The waiter recommends the fish. Bob orders the fish, has an allergic reaction and is rushed to the hospital The next day, Bob calls the restaurant and angrily yelled to the waiter, *****when I get out of this hospital, I*****m driving straight to your restaurant and I*****m gonna punch you in the nose!***** Has Bob committed a tort against the waiter?

There are a number of ways you could analyze this issue, but using IRAC can make it simple to structure your analysis. See below.

Issue: Has Bob committed a tort against the waiter? Rule: The tort of assault requires only that there be a reasonable apprehension or fear of immediate harm; whereas the tort of battery requires that there be actual physical contact. Since there was no physical contact, *****assault***** would apply, but battery would not apply to these facts. Analysis: For assault to occur, there must be a reasonable apprehension of immediate harm. In this case, there was definitely a reasonable apprehension of harm because the waiter recommended an entrÃ©e to a customer that got sick and had to be hospitalized. The facts state that Bob angrily yelled at the waiter and made a threat to harm him. Therefore, the *****reasonable***** apprehension element is satisfied. However, the second element for assault is not satisfied. Although there was a reasonable apprehension of harm, the harm was not *****immediate*****, which is required for battery to exist. Bob says that he is going to punch the waiter when he gets out of the hospital. If he was outside the restaurant, the *****immediate***** element might be satisfied, but not when he is still in the hospital.

Conclusion: Bob cannot be held liable for assault because the threatened harm to him was not *****immediate.*****

This is simply one example of a way to approach the issue. Not every scenario will lend itself so neatly to such an analysis like above. Nonetheless, the idea is to apply the legal principles that you learned to the facts and come to a conclusion based on your analysis. The key is to think about the facts and use them in your analysis. Most students simply come to a conclusion, but do not state how they arrived at the conclusion. Using IRAC will help in this regard.

*****

How to Reference "Negligence and Strict Liability" Case Study in a Bibliography

“Negligence and Strict Liability.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2011, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/negligence-strict-liability/7026083. Accessed 1 Jul 2024.

Negligence and Strict Liability (2011). Retrieved from https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/negligence-strict-liability/7026083

A1-TermPaper.com. (2011). Negligence and Strict Liability. [online] Available at: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/negligence-strict-liability/7026083 [Accessed 1 Jul, 2024].

”Negligence and Strict Liability” 2011. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/negligence-strict-liability/7026083.

”Negligence and Strict Liability” A1-TermPaper.com, Last modified 2024. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/negligence-strict-liability/7026083.

[1] ”Negligence and Strict Liability”, A1-TermPaper.com, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/negligence-strict-liability/7026083. [Accessed: 1-Jul-2024].

1. Negligence and Strict Liability [Internet]. A1-TermPaper.com. 2011 [cited 1 July 2024]. Available from: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/negligence-strict-liability/7026083

1. Negligence and Strict Liability. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/negligence-strict-liability/7026083. Published 2011. Accessed July 1, 2024.